Peoria Man Speaks Truth To Media About Defending Self, But Should Not Have

Feature | Peoria Man Speaks Truth To Media About Defending Self, But Should Not Have

February 5, 2023 / Comments (12)

Featured News

If ever there was a reason to keep your mouth shut, it would be after a defensive shooting. People, we cannot stress enough that if you're involved in an incident where you feel it is necessary to use your firearm in self-defense, for freedom's sake, don't talk about it afterward…

…especially to the filming media. Here's the lowdown on the story.

Speaks Truth to Media About Defending Self: Is it the Right Move?


The Story

Mr. Bowers heard someone in his house, so he retrieved his .357 magnum revolver. He confronted a man who was in the process of setting his house on fire. They fought for a bit, and the bad guy was shot point blank with one hollow point.

The sad part, which could turn around and bite Mr. Bowers in the rear end, is that he continued to fire his weapon at a fleeing attacker. He said that he thinks he fired 5 more shots, emptying his gun, as the man ran across a field. If you want to read the entire story, click here.

To my knowledge, there aren't any states in the Union that would allow someone to fire extra shots at a fleeing individual. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only use a gun if you're in fear for your life (and/or property protection in some states). If the attacker is running away, he's no longer a threat.

At that point, a court of law may suggest that you were just trying to kill the man. In all reality, the threat of arson was over, and so was the scuffle. He was not justified to pull the trigger after the man ran away.

The first shot when they were fighting, however, is more than justifiable. After all, he looks like an older man who doesn't seem to get around all that well and his life may have been in danger at that point. Plus, by the limited research I've done on Arizona gun laws, you're allowed to use deadly force on an individual if they are committing arson on an occupied structure.

Not only was the structure occupied, but an elderly 73-year-old man died because first responders couldn't get him out fast enough.

Are you worried about martial law?

Posted by Survival Life on Friday, November 13, 2015

But, to unload an entire gun in a field at a fleeing man–intruder/attacker/arsonist or not–is not a good idea. In fact, a liberal court could press charges against him.

To make matters potentially worse, authorities caught the arsonist a few blocks away, which leads me to believe that the field where Mr. Bowers was shooting is a populated area. There could have been innocent bystanders present, though we won't know for sure. We are thankful that he didn't accidentally shoot anyone else.

Friends, it is never a good idea to discharge a weapon at an uncertain target. In the heat of the moment, you don't know what is on the other side of the guy you're aiming at. Here is a video of the man giving an interview to ABC News:

What do you think about what the man said during his interview? Would you have divulged? Or, would you have waited for your lawyer to arrive before you said anything stupid? It's like my lawyer friend always says: “Lawyer up, and shut up!”

What is your personal insight into the story? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!

Up Next: True Stories of America’s Defensive Gun Use: Convenience Store Edition

Check out American Tactical FX45 1911 | Gun Carrier Handgun Review at

Follow us on FacebookInstagram, and Pinterest!

Disclaimer: All content on this site is for informational purposes only. Please read our full disclaimer here.

Editor’s Note: This post was originally published on April 9, 2016, and has been updated for quality and relevancy.

12 Responses to :
Peoria Man Speaks Truth To Media About Defending Self, But Should Not Have

  1. Sammysdad says:

    What is never mentioned after an incident like this, is the question,” What if (yeah, I know a “what if” situation) the innocent person feels this intruder will return with a gun or others with guns?” Should he wait for his return or keep shooting to try to stop him from ever coming back? Of course, I understand the fleeing suspect scenario and the threat is gone bit and not to shoot, but there is always this “return” scenario. What to do? It’s a puzzlement.

    1. John Humphries says:

      Coupled with present ability and would require and intimate knowledge of bad actor, i.e, does he own weapons, does he have a history of making threats, was he heard to make a threat of return “this ain’t the last you’ve seen of me.” Typically seen in an ongoing feud of sorts.

  2. Leonard says:

    This is a unique situation. If he believed this was a “hit”. He could reasonably assume the individual would come back later to finish the job. I don’t know all the different state laws but if you have a belief someone is going to harm you, you have a legal right to defend yourself. Fleeing or not.

    1. Mic says:

      In general, the article is correct.
      Never shoot unless there is an immediate threat of death (or in some states, a possibility of great injury).
      Shooting in a populated area, with a high powered handgun is never a good idea either.
      Which makes His ability to justify this action questionable.
      However this is AZ, a model gun rights state, so the laws give a lot of latitude to gun owners, basing it on a reasonable person’s assessment of the threat, in order to justify the action.
      in addition, few local prosecutors would risk trying this case. Trying to find a jury (in a state populated by gun owners and daily gun carriers) that would find him guilty of anything is very doubtful. But in many States you would be in big trouble over this.
      The key is in knowing your State’s laws and how they are applied, in order to keep your self out of trouble.

  3. PudbertSavannahGA says:

    Typical libT ardNA Z1 journalists trying to FK this guy by asking incriminating questions…
    Liberals are pieces of SHIIT and need to be eradicated from our country

  4. Joe Maxwell says:

    With the arsonist running away, the homeowner had to think he had not injured the arsonist and felt like he needed to stop him. The arsonist committed murder. If the court prosecutes the homeowner, all hell will break loose for the prosecutor and the court. I doubt an elected prosecutor would put himself in that position.

    1. Denny says:

      Hmm, Joey Maxwell FYI: “from my point of view”, most Prosecutors aren’t just too bright and or, competent either!
      That’s why most of them are doing the job they are, (prosecuting), instead of working on their own, or for some reputable firm, where they can/do/would make 3+ x’s as much $, … as they make as being a Prosecutor. Besides that, they do not need to be very good, efficient, or bright, to hold down the Elected-Political job of being a Prosecutor. All they really need to be is – – – a fence riding Politition, waiting for the right opportunity, AKA:Job at the Local/State/Federal level to open up. Then if his/their “nose” is Brown enuff & or they have licked enuff boots it will all work out well for them, … don’chu no it! LOL-true story 2.

  5. used to be a liberal says:

    No matter what the law states, no matter if you are 100% correct, and with-in your rights. It is always, eyes and ears open, and mouth shut. Never, ever talk to the media, they are under no circumstances ever your friend.
    If you are ever in a situation where it looks like you are going to be charged with something, then again, eyes and ears open mouth shut. When you are talking to a cop, and that stage is reached, the cop has already made his decision, all you are doing is telling him your defence which will be used against you.
    One other thing, it would not be a bad idea to have a lawyer that you can call at anytime day or night, you might never call one in your entire life, you may not have ever needed one, but do not get caught with your pants down, it costs you nothing to be prepared, but it could cost you more then money to be unprepared.
    Never argue law or points of law with a cop, not even lawyers will do that when their backs are up against the wall. You are best of just going with the flow, then dealing with all other matters later.
    Far too many people got their law degree on a street corner, most of them ended up sitting in a jail, don’t be one of them.

  6. Beverly Forrester says:

    Every senario is different from the last. First and foremost…..know the gun laws of the state in which you reside. Don’t wait till an incident occurs to suddenly find out that you are in violation. Adhere to the laws of the land, politely ask for your phone call if an event warrents it, and let your lawyer do the speaking.

  7. MSgt Cayton says:

    In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force in certain situations without being in fear of death or serious bodily injury. I’m not too certain any of them would apply here (yes, I know it was in Arizona). Without looking it up, here’s where I know you’re allowed to use deadly force (in Texas) without the risk of death or SBI:
    Defense of a third party
    Defense of personal property
    Home invasion
    Also, the state statutes are far more liberal (in the traditional sense) towards the defense when the attack happens at night. This is all based on fact, the law, and actual cases. In my opinion Texas has some great self-defense and property-defense laws.

  8. Edward Hesson says:

    The “if he is retreating” line of thinking is el toro poo-poo. When a perp breaks into your house the perp NEVER gives the intended victim fair warning. Once his surprise attack fails why give him a free pass to a second chance?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enter for a chance to WIN an Over Under Double Barrel Shotgun when you sign up today for our exclusive email newsletter subscription.